+- 1 more religious idiot in DC? No big deal… That they accept a magical omnipotent god exists is more worrying then any particular facet of that belief…

Or maybe our leaders are all cynical liars who are just pretending to believe to get votes. Which might be a bigger problem really…

]]>By: kuhniggethttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/10/19/shouldnt-senators-understand-the-constitution/#comment-260258
Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:23:04 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=22510#comment-260258And to be honest, I personally think that given the kind of drivel she spouts based on her current beliefs her experimentation back then is the least of her problems.

I, personally, find it odd that he needs to repeat so many times that he doesn’t care what she believed in when in college. It’s just, the whole witchcraft thing should be a complete non-issue, pagans are no more wackier than any other person who has some kind of religion. Frankly, I’ve found those I know to be even more pleasant to talk to because they dislike to proselytize and respect other people’s views, unlike some Christians and other religious folk.

True, you may be right that he wasn’t implying that one thing was worse than the other, but it’s the vibe I got. It’s also true that I might be biased after watching the media (and O’Donell herself) blowing the witchcraft thing out of proportion like it’s some kind of a huge scandal that she, *gasp* , might have been interested in something different than Christianity. And to be honest, I personally think that given the kind of drivel she spouts based on her current beliefs her experimentation back then is the least of her problems.

Not to speak for the good doctor, but I don’t think that’s what he was getting at at all. He brings up the whole past issue because that is what the media glommed onto and made such a big deal about. What O’Donnell did or believed back then is not as important as what she believes or does now. As Dr. Plait correctly observed, her college days, and whether she practiced witchcraft or satanism or Pilsbury Doughboyism just doesn’t matter.

Rag on O’Donnell all you want for her “witchcraft” statements, but I doubt you’d find such statements on Phil’s blog….unless they were included among a post about religious nuttiness in general.

]]>By: giahttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/10/19/shouldnt-senators-understand-the-constitution/#comment-260255
Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:17:42 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=22510#comment-260255Why do you keep saying that her past doesn’t worry you? I find it very unpleasant that so many people, including the goose, pardon, O’Donnell herself believe that having dabbled in paganism should be something shameful and worrying. What is even more unpleasant, no, downright offensive, is that both her, and apparently you, think that Wicca=Satanism. This statement is as far away from the truth as it could be. There’s nothing wrong in being a Wiccan, or at least it’s not any more wronger than being a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, etc. The fact that O’Donnell herself thinks that there IS something wrong with that, that the media keeps perpetuating this narrow-minded, bigoted lie is very disturbing. That said, the woman is ignorant about her own past, she’s ignorant about religion (in which she purports she believes in, so at the very least she could educate herself about that) it’s not surprising she would be ignorant about secular law as well. Frankly, it’s always embarrassing to hear her speak – every time she opens her mouth drivel comes out. Not to mention her remarks about Marxism. I am willing to bet everything I own that she has never in her life read a single line written by Karl Marx. It’s the same thing as claiming that there’s something wrong with being a Wiccan – thinking that there’s something wrong with accepting some of Marx’ ideas, for which she obviously knows nothing about, just like 99% of her fellow conservatives, be it Republicans or Teabaggers. That said, I’ve had the impression that plenty if Democrats haven’t read Marx either. He’s just used as a word to scare people, an abstract boogeyman in the political closet.
]]>By: Gunnarhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/10/19/shouldnt-senators-understand-the-constitution/#comment-260254
Fri, 22 Oct 2010 05:14:57 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=22510#comment-260254@Calli #116

“The irony is that not only is Protestantism usually traced to Martin Luther, but so is the separation of church and state, in his doctrine of two kingdoms and his idea of the “liberty of conscience.”

Yet, despite Martin Luther’s supposed advocacy of seperation of church and state, Lutheranism is (or at least was) the official state religion of all the Skandinavian countries, and citizens of those countries who don’t formally declare membership in another religion are required to pay an annual Church Tax (Kirkeskat) to finance it and pay the salaries of Lutheran priests and other State Church officials. This is despite the fact that only a very tiny percentage of Lutherans in these countries actually attend church on anything resembling a regular basis (or even take religion seriously). The monarchs who are the titular heads of these countries are (or at least used to be) required to be members of the Lutheran Church.

]]>By: Eighthttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/10/19/shouldnt-senators-understand-the-constitution/#comment-260252
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:20:41 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=22510#comment-260252@101, @112, @117, @127
Uh oh, looks like I opened a can of worms. When I was applying labels I was referring to the origin of the creation myth being taught – a myth shared in multiple religions – not the political/religious motivation behind those pushing for creationism. Maybe “Abrahamic creationism” would have been a better term than “Judeo-Christian creationism” since the later leaves out Islam (for some reason I couldn’t think of a term referring to all three plus the more ancient middle eastern lore it is based on all at once – sorry).

If you couldn’t tell from the rest of my comment, I think of creation myth (of any origin) within the same standards. These are also the same standards I apply to the Greek epics or Mark Twain’s novels or modern science fiction. They all have a place and should be understood and analyzed within context.

Would you agree that a definition of “creationism” is the teaching of a historical text out of context and interpreting it literally in place of modern discoveries? This could happen with any creation myth or historical text, except that most of the world accepts the discoveries of modern science as fact (because it’s been proven. And scientists are willing to admit when a theory is still just a theory and could be disproved at any time). At this point in time we’ve only got one (general) type of creationism based on the creation myth shared by Christianity, Judaism and Islam. I suppose a better term would have been “Abrahamic creationism” (my fault for not wracking my brain long enough to come up with the right terminology).

I can’t remember Jesus ever being mentioned as a part of creationism, so I’m a little confused how you’d assume the two are automatically related (sure it’s the super-conservative Christians who are touting creationism all over the place and I wouldn’t doubt if someone has tried to associate the two). I guess I figured* a creationism class would cover lore up to the “Great Flood” that killed all the unicorns and dinosaurs**: http://robotchicken.wikia.com/wiki/Noah%27s_Rejects
Anything more than that is blatantly religious and has nothing to do with their beliefs about creation.**

* I’m sorry for being the only one to assume that creationists would be even marginally rational and even attempt to “stick to the facts” without going on to teach the whole bible literally – that would just be silly.

** If you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic. It is frustrating to see any text taken out of context, and especially so when creation myths are interpreted literally.

Except maybe for Calvino’s Cosmicomics.**

]]>By: DebMorhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/10/19/shouldnt-senators-understand-the-constitution/#comment-260251
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:09:25 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=22510#comment-260251When you take the time to lambaste current Senators for their complete disregard of the Constitution, then start ranting about candidates, OK?

Or , let me guess, as long as they vote for unconstitutional giveaways, then the Constitution isnt in the forefront of your concerns?

I’m simply pointing out to a liberal leaning blog how it’s hypocritical to use the Constitutional argument against conservatives while many liberal policies also show a lack of care for the Constitution.

You can take my word or not. I tend to read the Constitution as literally as possible and believe the idea was for any changes to be made through the amendment process. The 10th Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” To me that clearly means that any powers not specifically determined to be federal responsibilities should be left up to the states or more local governments.

Just a few areas where I believe the federal government has overstepped their bounds:

1. Drug Policy – Notice how it was believed an amendment was needed for prohibition but not for modern regulation. I overall think this is a bad thing that’s lead to wasted tax dollars any millions of innocent people put into prison that are not truly dangers to society.

2. Education – Where in the Constitution is the power given? The federal government should technically have no say on individual state policies and should be using no tax dollars to influence those policies. Overall, I think a federal education policy is a good thing. Doesn’t make it more Constitutional though.

3. Healthcare – Another are that the federal government was not specifically given power over. I’m not even sure how the commerce clause can be bastardized to fit this one. I think a federal policy that removed or at least highly regulated insurance provides would be a net good for the country. The current bill is not though. Again, Constitutionality is not a right/wrong choice though.

4. Our treatment of “illegal combatants” – The arguments conservatives use that the government is not bound by the Constitution when dealing with foreigners is a bunch of bull. The Constitution is a set of limitation on the power of the federal government in their interactions with all other governments and people regardless of their citizenship. This will be a blight on the trustworthiness of our government for years to come.

The expantion of powers has occurred due to a number of factors. It basically comes down to the amendment process requires an extremely high amount of agreement amongst the states to pass anything. Yet, people, whether they be conservative or liberal, want to pass through whatever they think is right regardless of what the Constitution says. So politicians happily oblige and politically motivated judges support those changes through complicated inurpretations of the Constitution. In short, as with all problems in our government, it boils down to the will of the people since they are the base of power in a democratic system.

From a overall viewpoint, ignoring our Constitution is a bad thing. While I might think some policies that should be unconstitutional are net benefits to the people, the Constitution was set up as a strict compromise between the states and federal government in an effort to maximize the liberty of the people. It sets up a nice framework for government which maximizes the longevity and stability of the government while at the cost of efficiency. Requiring a 3/4 majority of states approval to expand the powers of the federal government sets a high bar that ensures that only the most obvious and agreed to changes are made. Without this high bar, our republic becomes something closer to a democracy which is more controlled by the tyranny of the majority. Not even a majority is required. All you need is a bigger minority than other minorities. This will allow power to be more consolidated at a federal level which will lead to more corruption. The combination of more corruption and each indivudual having less say in their laws will lead to people shunning their responsibility, blaming problems on the government on not on themselves and other people. This only allows corruption to expand further which even smaller groups of people needed to push through their agenda. This will eventually lead to the federal government dominating peoples’ lives without their say and more quickly lead to the collapse of the government.